I'd be willing to bet there were keys for other ways of securing a vehicle before there were keyed ignitions. In fact, given that the early cars were crank start, probably locking the trunk was close enough.
From what I've read (kind of a car junkie, so this discussion is right in my wheelhouse), Cadillac technically came out with the first keyed-ignition system in 1912, which also happened to be the first self-start (i.e., non-hand-cranked) system as well; it required a key to be inserted and turned to a certain position before the starter button could be pressed.
So yea, call it a hunch, but I bet the law cited above was legislated some time after 1912.
This is the avenue that I see auto-cars taking by storm: public and semi-public transit.
Nobody I know is interested in spending tens of thousands of dollars on a car that they don't have control over, but I know a lot of people who would love to be able to have curb-side public transit available, for a reasonable cost, that didn't involve sharing space with some funky-smelling cabbie*. Not to mention, with auto-driving busses, gone will be the days of Youtube videos depicting stupid asshole bus drivers causing a 12 car pileup because he was too busy texting.
* Not to say all cabbies are funky-smelling, just the few I've ridden with.
Yes! And even then, the markets controlled by criminals can and do give rise to (blacker? Black black?) markets, because there's always somebody, somewhere, that doesn't want to have to deal with someone else's bullshit just to trade for goods.
Yea, there are exceptions to every rule, hence my use of the qualifying term, "almost."
Is this open air drug market the only place to buy drugs in DC? Or are there other places you can go and not have to deal with the "regulation" that you're talking about?
Yes, even regulated black markets can spawn unregulated ones.
I may be wrong, but 99% of the time when people say...
From what I've seen, 99% of the time, when the media says anything about X, they say it with a particular conclusion already in mind. That's why I tend to look stats up for myself, when I care enough about the topic. Here's a document I found that seems to have a pretty straightforward tone to it, although it's 14 year old data. Seems the "per capita" numbers are the ones we really care about.
For example, suppose there is a car full of 5 kids stuck on a railroad track. Should your robotic car push the kids off the track, endangering it's own two occupants?
Or should the car back away and let a third car, on the other side containing just one person attempt to move the trapped car?
Are the sensors that detect things like occupants in other vehicles and train tracks and oncoming trains optional equipment, mandatory, or pure science fiction?
Because if they're optional, I'm not paying for that trim package.
These are all questions real life people have to solve - and the owner of the car should have some say in what value the car places on their own life.
That is, you should be able to set your own car's safety margin from safety of occupants life = infinite life, to total safety, to safety based on ages (i.e. count children higher than adults, and even the possibility of counting senior citizens less.)
Considering how our society works, the most likely circumstance is that the manufacturers will design them to be "least liable" - i.e., they won't detect passengers in other vehicles, and they sure as hell won't bother with complex decision making algorithms.
To be fair, a number of them have been second-hand, and another number were older models that I stripped and hot-rodded, and all but the latest were 1989 model year or older.
I had an old '84 GMC longbed with dual tanks, and one of them leaked horribly if you filled it more than halfway, but I don't think that was a manufacturer defect (at least, I never found a recall notice or TSB for it).
My old '89 Sierra had some issues with the radio wiring that might have been from the factory, but that's not really a safety issue so much as an annoyance.
My current truck is an '07 model Chevy 4x4, and while I've heard of other people having issues with the transfer case in similar models, I haven't had any trouble myself, and it'll be crossing 90,000 miles within the next couple of months. Haven't seen any recalls or TSB's for this truck, either, so if you know of any by all means, pass the info along. I'd rather drive a defect-free vehicle than be right.
That only applies to the two newest model years (which are, themselves, an all new platform); considering how many not-two-newest-model-year Chevy trucks are on the road today, and have not been recalled for major safety issues, I'd have to say that luck has nothing to do with it. Feel free to keep grasping.
This puts law enforcement against the very people they are supposed to serve and protect.
Not according to the SCOTUS - go look up "Warren v DC"
Per that decision, the job of LEOs is to, "maintain the status quo," and they in fact have "no duty to protect the safety of individual citizens."
Food for thought next time your local PD starts trying to scare you into increasing their budget so they can hire more officers to "protect" the public.
Do you want to live in a world where you own your property?
I take it you don't actually read EULAs...
Seriously, what makes you think, considering the way electronic/software law has gone, that the manufacturers won't make you sign a document that waives their responsibility AND your ownership of the machine, like, game consoles, or mobile phones, or [name something with hardware/software]? If I'm not legally allowed to modify the software in my 13 year old Xbox, I highly doubt I'd be allowed to do the same with a brand new auto-car.
That's actually a good point: since the occupants would have zero control over their vehicle, it would be trivial for LEOs to set up drive-through nudie scanners, redirect all traffic through them, then single out the cars that "appear to be carrying contraband" and put them on a separate track for an "enhanced" search.
The fact that such a thing would be mind-bendingly unconstitutional will probably never even cross their minds, so long as the practice remains profitable.
Are you really that stupid as to not be able to remember what you wrote?
Its worse than that. There is a rapidly growing segment of the population that doesnt say what they mean, and thinks that its quite alright that they do not say what they mean.
I'm guessing that's the same segment who respond to usage and grammar corrections with a snarky, "Well, what does it matter?"
However, they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun that someone takes away from the stupid owner of said stupid gun.
Shooting someone remains illegal, so Im not clear what your beef is.
Well, it's not typically illegal if the person you're shooting is committing a violent criminal act at the time... maybe OP has a soft spot for rapists and gang bangers?
A better analogy would be the keyed ignition (mechanical or wireless electronic) which practically all cars already have to make unauthorized use more difficult.
Bring guns up to the same standard and then we'll talk;-)
If the keyed ignition was legally mandated to have a biometric lock or 10 cm proximity sensor, it might be analogous.
Of course, it's a dumb comparison to begin with, as a gun, unlike a car, is intended for use in life-or-death situations, where any sort of unnecessary delay in deployment could be fatal. If you're getting into potentially fatal situations with a car, in which the useability of the key is a factor, you're probably doing it wrong.
Now what's your excuse? Did the 'market' decide this was required for cars?
I would say yes, since, prior to keyed ignition systems, cars probably got stolen a lot.
The question you should be asking, assuming you want a legitimate and factual answer, is "which came first: The keyed ignition, or the law requiring keyed ignitions?"
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be willing to bet there were keys for other ways of securing a vehicle before there were keyed ignitions. In fact, given that the early cars were crank start, probably locking the trunk was close enough.
From what I've read (kind of a car junkie, so this discussion is right in my wheelhouse), Cadillac technically came out with the first keyed-ignition system in 1912, which also happened to be the first self-start (i.e., non-hand-cranked) system as well; it required a key to be inserted and turned to a certain position before the starter button could be pressed.
So yea, call it a hunch, but I bet the law cited above was legislated some time after 1912.
Damn, you're right.
Or as K-9 would say, "AFFIRMATIVE!"
Probably my favorite TV robot ever.
This is the avenue that I see auto-cars taking by storm: public and semi-public transit.
Nobody I know is interested in spending tens of thousands of dollars on a car that they don't have control over, but I know a lot of people who would love to be able to have curb-side public transit available, for a reasonable cost, that didn't involve sharing space with some funky-smelling cabbie*. Not to mention, with auto-driving busses, gone will be the days of Youtube videos depicting stupid asshole bus drivers causing a 12 car pileup because he was too busy texting.
* Not to say all cabbies are funky-smelling, just the few I've ridden with.
Yes! And even then, the markets controlled by criminals can and do give rise to (blacker? Black black?) markets, because there's always somebody, somewhere, that doesn't want to have to deal with someone else's bullshit just to trade for goods.
It's black markets all the way down!
Yea, there are exceptions to every rule, hence my use of the qualifying term, "almost."
Is this open air drug market the only place to buy drugs in DC? Or are there other places you can go and not have to deal with the "regulation" that you're talking about?
Yes, even regulated black markets can spawn unregulated ones.
I may be wrong, but 99% of the time when people say...
From what I've seen, 99% of the time, when the media says anything about X, they say it with a particular conclusion already in mind. That's why I tend to look stats up for myself, when I care enough about the topic. Here's a document I found that seems to have a pretty straightforward tone to it, although it's 14 year old data. Seems the "per capita" numbers are the ones we really care about.
I'm a biological robot after all...
I prefer "walking chemical processing plant" myself.
Come back when the Google car has driven a few billion miles through all manner of hazardous road conditions and we'll have a look at the statistics.
That's better.
For example, suppose there is a car full of 5 kids stuck on a railroad track. Should your robotic car push the kids off the track, endangering it's own two occupants?
Or should the car back away and let a third car, on the other side containing just one person attempt to move the trapped car?
Are the sensors that detect things like occupants in other vehicles and train tracks and oncoming trains optional equipment, mandatory, or pure science fiction?
Because if they're optional, I'm not paying for that trim package.
These are all questions real life people have to solve - and the owner of the car should have some say in what value the car places on their own life.
That is, you should be able to set your own car's safety margin from safety of occupants life = infinite life, to total safety, to safety based on ages (i.e. count children higher than adults, and even the possibility of counting senior citizens less.)
Considering how our society works, the most likely circumstance is that the manufacturers will design them to be "least liable" - i.e., they won't detect passengers in other vehicles, and they sure as hell won't bother with complex decision making algorithms.
Doctor Fail: Daleks aren't robots.
What you meant to say was,
DELETE! DELETE! DELETE!
Nope.
To be fair, a number of them have been second-hand, and another number were older models that I stripped and hot-rodded, and all but the latest were 1989 model year or older.
I had an old '84 GMC longbed with dual tanks, and one of them leaked horribly if you filled it more than halfway, but I don't think that was a manufacturer defect (at least, I never found a recall notice or TSB for it).
My old '89 Sierra had some issues with the radio wiring that might have been from the factory, but that's not really a safety issue so much as an annoyance.
My current truck is an '07 model Chevy 4x4, and while I've heard of other people having issues with the transfer case in similar models, I haven't had any trouble myself, and it'll be crossing 90,000 miles within the next couple of months. Haven't seen any recalls or TSB's for this truck, either, so if you know of any by all means, pass the info along. I'd rather drive a defect-free vehicle than be right.
That only applies to the two newest model years (which are, themselves, an all new platform); considering how many not-two-newest-model-year Chevy trucks are on the road today, and have not been recalled for major safety issues, I'd have to say that luck has nothing to do with it. Feel free to keep grasping.
Hmmm... if only there was some way to use sound as a data communications medium...
This puts law enforcement against the very people they are supposed to serve and protect.
Not according to the SCOTUS - go look up "Warren v DC"
Per that decision, the job of LEOs is to, "maintain the status quo," and they in fact have "no duty to protect the safety of individual citizens."
Food for thought next time your local PD starts trying to scare you into increasing their budget so they can hire more officers to "protect" the public.
Do you want to live in a world where you own your property?
I take it you don't actually read EULAs...
Seriously, what makes you think, considering the way electronic/software law has gone, that the manufacturers won't make you sign a document that waives their responsibility AND your ownership of the machine, like, game consoles, or mobile phones, or [name something with hardware/software]? If I'm not legally allowed to modify the software in my 13 year old Xbox, I highly doubt I'd be allowed to do the same with a brand new auto-car.
That's actually a good point: since the occupants would have zero control over their vehicle, it would be trivial for LEOs to set up drive-through nudie scanners, redirect all traffic through them, then single out the cars that "appear to be carrying contraband" and put them on a separate track for an "enhanced" search.
The fact that such a thing would be mind-bendingly unconstitutional will probably never even cross their minds, so long as the practice remains profitable.
I'd recommend against quoting an incredibly un-funny comedian if you ever want to be taken seriously.
Yea, that butter is an effin' mess, but damn are they fun to shoot!
Used to live in the US but now in Canada... Far less gun crimes up here
Less crime in general. Less people as well: Canada has a total population of around 35 million, compared to the USA's 314 million.
Funny how that little tidbit never comes up when people compare Canada and the US, as if it's not relevant.
Are you really that stupid as to not be able to remember what you wrote?
Its worse than that. There is a rapidly growing segment of the population that doesnt say what they mean, and thinks that its quite alright that they do not say what they mean.
I'm guessing that's the same segment who respond to usage and grammar corrections with a snarky, "Well, what does it matter?"
However, they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun that someone takes away from the stupid owner of said stupid gun.
Shooting someone remains illegal, so Im not clear what your beef is.
Well, it's not typically illegal if the person you're shooting is committing a violent criminal act at the time... maybe OP has a soft spot for rapists and gang bangers?
^^ This. It was about as feasible to arm oneself against the government then as it is now -- not at all feasible.
... and yet, back then a rag-tag bunch of well-armed citizens did just that - overthrew the tyranny of the most powerful government on the planet.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don't know what the word "feasible" means.
Whether through intent or ignorance, you completely missed OP's point.
A better analogy would be the keyed ignition (mechanical or wireless electronic) which practically all cars already have to make unauthorized use more difficult.
Bring guns up to the same standard and then we'll talk ;-)
If the keyed ignition was legally mandated to have a biometric lock or 10 cm proximity sensor, it might be analogous.
Of course, it's a dumb comparison to begin with, as a gun, unlike a car, is intended for use in life-or-death situations, where any sort of unnecessary delay in deployment could be fatal. If you're getting into potentially fatal situations with a car, in which the useability of the key is a factor, you're probably doing it wrong.
Now what's your excuse? Did the 'market' decide this was required for cars?
I would say yes, since, prior to keyed ignition systems, cars probably got stolen a lot.
The question you should be asking, assuming you want a legitimate and factual answer, is "which came first: The keyed ignition, or the law requiring keyed ignitions?"